Then your question about “bystanders” is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The article claims people were selected to be killed on very flimsy evidence, yet always classified as enemies killed in action. These are not “bystanders.”
You will now perhaps attempt to argue that this does not constitute “intentional” killing of innocents, which has a similar problem with relevance. Indiscriminate killing is highly immoral.
abalone|4 years ago
You will now perhaps attempt to argue that this does not constitute “intentional” killing of innocents, which has a similar problem with relevance. Indiscriminate killing is highly immoral.